The Only Gun Control That May Work

The gun control debate rages again. The Newtown massacre has the pro-gun control in an orgiastic spasm of rhetoric . . . again. The NRA is advocating the placement of armed police officers in every school in the United States. The gun-control people are again advocating for an assault weapons ban in the country . . . despite the fact that no assault weapon was used in the Newtown incident.

Let’s all be honest here. Guns have been a fixture of American life from before the American Revolution. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is as much to permit the public to defend themselves from a government gone rogue as it is to permit hunting, home defense, and the protection of life from the criminal element.

The gun-control advocates want fewer guns in the country, ignoring the fact that criminals by definition are unlikely to surrender their weapons, leaving the populace at large at their mercy. The law enforcement community is not legally required to protect the citizenry at large. There have been several court decisions reinforcing this concept.

The only solution, as I see the problem, is draconian, no disputing that. Unarmed venues are perceived as ‘soft’ targets for the criminal element. This is evidenced by the preference shown toward schools and college campuses repeatedly being the places these horrific events unfold. I fear the only solution that may work to diminish gun crime in this country is this:  Pass laws in every state and Federal jurisdiction, imposing a mandatory death sentence for any felony committed in possession of a firearm or lethal projectile weapon, or claiming to possess one at the time the crime is committed. Use a gun to commit a crime; you die. That’s it. Even on a first offense. Use a gun to hold up a store, and you’re done. When convicted, the criminal will be put to death. Try to hold up a store, and get shot by the clerk, the clerk gets off on self-defense. The defendant can  appeal the conviction, but the sentence is not reversible, unless the appeal succeeds.

By continuing to coddle these gun-toting criminals, with short sentences and probationary releases, society contributes to the problem by enabling the behavior. We learn as children that stealing and killing is wrong. Why do we not punish such behavior as it arguably deserves?

The advantages of this proposed solution are apparent. If the criminal decides to commit crimes, he has to decide if the potential gains are worth his life to bring a gun to the robbery. The behavior itself will be discouraged, as the solution will prevent every future crime such a criminal may commit. Petty thefts where no weapon is present will not have this penalty imposed. If a juvenile is the criminal, they are tried as adults. A gun negates any differential based on age, once the child has passed the ‘age of reason’. The argument of a criminal taking a weapon to steal from armed individuals as an attempt to impose fairness in the exchange is ludicrous. There is no entitlement granting anyone the right to steal money or property from another, with the possible exception of the Internal Revenue Service.

For those who argue the penalty is too severe, there are a few things to offer in exchange. First, the present situation is as much the fault of the criminals that choose to employ firearms in the pursuit of their ill-gotten gains, as the society that has enabled their behavior. Second, their behavior up until now does not argue in favor of their abandoning firearms anytime soon. Thirdly, as long as society offers up ‘soft’ targets in the form of ‘Firearms Prohibited’ zones, gunmen will be drawn inexorably to those ‘soft’ targets, secure in the knowledge that no one there will be shooting back, and that they will pursue their goals successfully.

Three hundred million gun owners are not shooting schoolchildren, robbing banks and stores, conducting home invasions and all the other gun-related violence in the country. One gun owner in a Sacramento, California neighborhood defended his home, his children and their friends sleeping over from three armed home invaders. The homeowner survived, wounded, after shooting all three invaders, killing one. No children were injured in the incident. Here’s the link: http://bcove.me/uhup45tp Stack this incident with Newtown. They appear to cancel one another in political terms.